Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-03-21Mayor Mark N. Addie§o Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: Emanuele N. Damonte Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: {Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: AGENDA REVIEW 1. Further discussion of the General Plan Policies. MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room March 21, 1984 333 ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 4:50 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Teglia and Addiego. Haffey and Damonte. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo stated that he had nothing to add and that at 7:30 p.m., the City Attorney would need a Closed Session for litigation. Mayor Addiego stated that the Council would adjourn this meeting for dinner at 6:30 p.m., and have the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that Council had sche- duled this meeting to discuss the remaining General Plan policies not covered at prior meetings and to give Staff direction in terms of what policies it would like studied or modified before final adoption of the General Plan. He stated that at a prior meeting Council had discussed Policies 1-49 and on March 3, 1984, had held a Public Hearing and the public testimony portion had been closed. He stated that the Council was in receipt of letters from: Mr. Poletti on school property adjacent to his pro- perty on Alida Way; Garnet Advertising about a proposal in the policies relating to outdoor advertising signs; BCDC recom- mending certain open space designation be provided adjacent to the bay next to the U. S. Steel property. Mayor Addiego stated he would now open discussion to Council on policies of individual concern. 3/21/84 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Further discussion of the General Plan Policies - Continued. Councilman Damonte arrived at 5:02 p.m. Councilwoman Teglia requested a draft of the policies already discussed with requests for modifications by the Council. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela gave each Councilmember a report of modified Policies 3, 9, 10, 14, 21, 23 (which was deleted), 27, 28, 29 and 38. Councilman Damonte arrived at 5:02 p.m. Councilwoman Teglia stated that Policy 9 was basically a restatement combined with Policy 28 and 29 and questioned why it had not been rewritten as one policy con- solidating the three policies to see if the Council agreed. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela suggested that the Council look over Policy 28 and 29 to see whether they should be retained or combine the thrust into one policy. Mayor Addiego stated that he did not see how they could be combined because one was dealing with the reuse of the pro- perty and the other was dealing with the reuse of the existing facility, and 28 was extra verbage. Councilwoman Teglia thought there should be two policies, one to deal with the surplus land not developed and the other to deal with the developed school proper- ties that have become surplus. She stated that Policies 28 and 29 should be consolidated and retain Policy 9. She spoke of the elimination of specific uses in Policy 29. Mayor Addiego stated that they had been eliminated because the Council was more interested in non-intensive and day oriented uses which the ones eliminated did not fall under. Councilwoman Teglia stated that each school owned site should be looked at in terms of its neighborhood. 3/21/84 Page 2 ^C ZO. 235 1. Further discussion of the General Plan Policies - Continued. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that the School District had wanted an open ended use which the Council had not responded to, in fact had rejected. Discussion followed: that any use the School District wanted for a site had to be approved by the City; if the School District applied for a use that was traf- fic generating it would be denied by the City; that the City encouraged day care centers; that as long as a school con- tinued it was governed by the State and when that school became surplus property it was governed by the City; protecting the community against traffic generating uses; canvassing the people in the neigh- borhood of the vacant schools and get their opinion of uses they would find compatible; that the policy should reflect that the use should be compatible with the neighborhood. Council agreed to the new language in Policy 14. Mayor Addiego stated that Policy 21 might be the standard for flat land and questioned a property that might be tucked into a hillside, could they build higher. Discussion followed: that the Council had not changed the wordage - that the height of condominiums, townhouses and rental units should not exceed two stories in rental areas; that this change was for low density; should read: the height of new residential structures; the various densities, and height restrictions; where highrise buildings should be erected; etc. Discussion followed on Policy 23 being deleted; offering a 20% density bonus on affordable housing; and State law; etc. Discussion followed on Policy 27: defi- nitions of mobilehomes, manufactured homes and factory built housing; where manufactured houses could be installed; 3/21/84 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 22G 1. Further discussion of the General Plan Policies - Continued. Vice Mayor Haffey arrived at 5:50 p.m. (Cassette No. 2) that the City could designate certain areas that were specifically appropriate for this type of use; that Councilwoman Teglia had a problem with mobile homes or manufactured homes on the Spruce Drive-in site and wanted it eliminated; the City Attorney's memo was read into the record (and is attached and a permanent part of the record). Vice Mayor Haffey arrived at 5:50 p.m. Discussion continued on Policy 27: putting in architectural standards and minimum sizes; how a manufactured home erected in a neighborhood would afffect land values; the importance of designating areas for mobile homes; that E1Camino should be a commercial zone to generate sales tax; how McLellan Nursery being a mobile park would impact the neighborhood; to designate areas as mobile parks that already have that use; flood levels in the various areas; that Mission Road was the only acceptable use as a mobile home. Consensus of Council - That Spruce Drive- in Theatre, McLellan Nursery, Mission Road area and E1Camino Real are elimi- nated from Policy 27 and it should read: along the east side of E1Camino Real west of Colma Creek and north of the City limits and south of Westborough new manu- factured housing should be allowed. Consensus of Council - To approve amended policies 28, 29 and 38. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that on Policy 50 he agreed with the letter from Mr. Tevini on the possibility of regu- lating cardrooms through an ordinance and prohibit any new cardrooms in the City. Mayor Addiego, Vice Mayor Haffey and Councilwoman Teglia stated that they agreed with Policy 50 as written. Councilman Damonte questioned the term phase out of existence. 3/21/84 Page 4 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDU:bI I D~le February 17, 1984 ~. I, ii 51~ %~:.' . 337 Director of Community Development TO: SUB~ECT:Mobilehomes and the General Plan 1;q{OIN/i: City Attorney COPIES TO: City Manager City Council After observing the discussion of February 15, 1984 regarding the treatment of mobilehomes and mobilehome parks in the General Plan Land Use Element, it appeared necessary to submit this memorandum explaining the current sta. te law on the subject. A mobilehome means a structure transportable in one or more sections, de- signed and equipped to contain not more than two dwelling units to be Used with or without a foundation system. Mobilehome does not includ~ a recre- ational vehicle, commercial coach or factory bu'ilt housing as defined in the Health and Safety Code. The term manufactured home means a mobilehome. There is also a term called "factory-built housing" which means, among other things, a dwelling unit manufactured in such a manner that all con- cealed parts or processes of manufacture cannot be inspected before in- stallation at the building, site (i.e. prefabricated structures) but does not include a mobilehome. Government Code Section 65852.3 states in relevant part: "A city shall not prohibit the installation of mobilehomes on a foundation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code, on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. However, a city . may designate lots zoned for single-family dwellings for mobilehomes as described in this section, which lots are determined to be compatible for such mobilehome use. A city . . may subject any such mobilehome and the lot on which it is placed to any or all of the same development standards to which a conventional single- family residential dwelling on the same lot.would be subject, in- cluding but not limited to, building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle parking and architectural, aestheti'c requirements, and minimum square footage re. quirements. However, any architectural requirements imposed on the mobilehome structure itself, exclusive of any requirement for any and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roff over- hang, roo'fing material, and siding material. In no case may a city apply any development standards which will have the effect of totally precluding mobilehome$ from being installed ~'s permanent residences." Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the State of California has mandated that mobilehomes must be treated much the same as conventional single family 3/21/84 Page 4a As/ss 205 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Further discussion of the General Plan Policies - Continued. City Attorney Rogers stated that it could be done in a number of ways: 1) Leave the card rooms as non-conforming uses and allow attrition to phase them out of existence; discontinued use for six months. Discussion followed: Council did not want to see the City pressuring the card rooms to close down; that the business could not expand or move; if it burned down it could not be rebuilt; it could not be sold; card games legal in California, etc. Consensus of Council - To strike Policy 44. Councilwoman Teglia stated that Policy 45 should address the proliferation of storage and used car lots or used car/truck sales should be discouraged from already impacted areas such as along E1 Camino Real. M/S Haffey/Damonte - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. APPROVED: ~taya ,~ City of South San Francisco Mark ~. Addie~)o, Mayor City of South San Franciscd~ The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying 3/21/84 Page 5 Mayor Mark N. Addiego Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey Counci 1: Emanuele N. Damonte Gus Nicolopulos Roberta Cerri Te§lia MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room March 21, 1984 240 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission and the Parking Place Commission on Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California Purpose of the meeting: 1. Discussion regarding Parking District Policies as they relate to the Downtown Revitalization. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations and litigation. -- Dated: March 16, 1984 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations and litigation. ACTION TAKEN SPECIAL MEETING 7:45 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. Council present: Council absent: Teglia, Haffey and Addiego. Nicolopulos and Damonte. Planning Commission present: Bertucelli, Grimes, Hoyer, Mantegani, Martin, Terry and Chairman Getz. Planning Commission absent: None. Parking Place Commission present: Ross, Rosaia and Chairman Sciandri. Parking Place Commission absent: None. Mayor Addiego stated that there would be a brief Closed Session for the discussion of litigation at the beginning of the meeting. 3/21/84 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Councilmen Nicolopulos and Damonte arrived. RECALL TO ORDER: Discussion regarding Parking District policies as they relate to the Downtown Revitalization. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 7:46 p.m., for the discussion of litiga- tion. Councilman Nicolopulos and Councilman Damonte arrived at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was recalled to order at 7:54 p.m., all Council present, no action was taken. Mayor Addiego stated that Councilwoman Teglia had asked for this meeting because she felt that the Boards were out of sync with each other. He stated that he wanted to tell the Planning Commission that some displeasure that they read about in the paper about his viewpoints on how they conducted their business was better placed in displeasure with circumstance rather than with individuals. He stated that he recognized that each fell into things that happen outside of one's control, so he really was not pointing at any individual. Chairman Getz stated that the press report cited concerns over a revocation proceeding and his comments by the Chair and other Commissioners which tended, according to the City Attorney, to affect the revocation proceeding for the Council in a manner he felt was so effective that it had to be remanded back to the Commission. He stated that the Commission had reviewed the transcript of the proceedings and that they had complied completely with the advice given by the memorandum given by the City Attorney - the open hearing, took sworn testimony, closed the hearing, made a recommendation of revocation unqualified. He continued, then himself and members of the Commission made comments, which he could describe as innocuous, about urging Mr. Valencia to do certain things in the interim which were after the action was taken and not part of the action. He stated that he did not see in any way how 3/21/84 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Discussion - Continued. that could affect the validity of the hearing because it was closed. He stated that the Assistant City Attorney had been present and did not tell the Commission it was doing anything wrong, which she would have if she felt the Commission was wrong. He continued, that it came as a surprise to read the newspa- per article comments and in reading the transcript the comments to Mr. Valencia suggested he clean up his act as there was a six week interim. Vice Mayor Haffey stated that in the transcript Council had received the hearing was closed and the Commission continued conversation and within the transcript your conversation was included. Chairman Getz read his comments on Page 29 of the transcript. City Attorney Rogers stated that the action (vote) was taken after the com- ments and that his point to the Council was that it was unfortunate that several comments were made to the effect that, "We will take action tonight to recommend revocation, but you really have six to eight weeks now before the record is before the Council to essentially get all of these items completed and tell the Council they are done." He stated that that was not a clean record for him to take to the Judge if he doesn't get it done unless the Council is willing to let him have his say in terms of presenting evidence at the Council level. He con- tinued, that Staff had tried not to second guess the Planning Commission on what happened subsequent to their hearing to adhere to the policy which the Council did tonight on Classic Van. He stated that his point was that the Commission could be sympathetic with the eight weeks but it should not be put in a transcript that he had to put in front of a Judge. He stated that the Judge could say that we didn't allow him to put additional evidence on at our level and the person 3/21/84 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 243 1. Discussion - Continued. could make a legitimate argument before the Judge. He stated that something had to be done and that was why it was remanded. Chairman Getz apologized, if there was an error, to the Council but he said you could present a record to a Judge showing that you have given a man every oppor- tunity and rather than weaken the case it would strengthen it. He continued, if he came and complied with everything at a Council level - why would you want to revoke him, on the other hand if he did not what Judge would say that he had been given every single opportunity. Mayor Addiego requested a clarification from the City Attorney on making a deter- mination based on the transcript. City Attorney Rogers stated that a hypothetical was given when discussing this with Director of Community Development Dell'Angela, "what is the Council going to do if the guy actually got everything all done and was totally in compliance before the record gets here." He stated that the action was up to the Council and that when creating a record there is always potential 1 itiga- tion - potential, we have actual on this one. He cited reasons for having a clean record to present to a judge; procedural faults, etc. Councilwoman Teglia spoke of the invest- ment by the City in the Downtown Revitalization Plan and the thought that through that investment the bottom line was that the property owners would see fit to begin investing in their own pro- perty and the City would see an economic resurgence or revitalization. She con- tinued, that in the proposed general plan there were long range plans for that area. She continued, the Parking Place Commission for a long time has been con- cerned over the parking needs that they were unable to meet in the downtown area. She stated that there is interest 3/21/84 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. o44 expressed in developing used property on Grand Avenue and the downtown area. She stated that some of those proposals were being brought before the Parking Place Commission for their review to see how much parking they can provide and whether they were going to be impacting the existing parking downtown. She stated that from her perspective the Parking Place Commission was determining that there was a critical situation downtown and that new development that cannot accommodate its parking needs should not be allowed. She stated that the effect of that was that it was running in contradiction with what the Council hoped would happen downtown. She continued, there were specific projects being pro- posed that were being shut down and won- dered if that was the direction in which the City wanted to go. Parking Place Commissioner Sciandri stated that the Commission did not want to see any project stopped, but they didn't want to see a project proceed where it would enhance a certain project and affect the rest of the downtown area and the whole parking district. He cited the new projects that had come into the downtown area: the Bocci Building, the State Building, Peres Cafe, Silver Dollar and the Croation Building that put a bur- den on the parking situation. He stated that the Bocci Building has two floors of offices and that the project had never been brought before the Parking Commission for their approval - yet it was approved and put into the downtown area as were the other buildings. He stated that in the two floors of offices there were fifteen people working there without parking provided, so that meant that they take up fifteen parking spaces that were meant for customers on Grand Avenue and the District. He stated that the Commission wanted to be able to supply enough parking needs so that the revitalization will not be affected. He continued, if the Commission had allowed the projects to come in it would eventually 3/21/84 Page 5 AGE"DA ACTZO" TAKE" 1. Discussion - Continued. kill the downtown area. He stated that the parking would be taken up during the day by apartment dwellers and the office people during the day which is when the businesses are open. He stated that the Commission did not want this to happen, in that the downtown businesses were on the upswing and wanted to continue in that manner. Vice Mayor Haffey questioned why the Bocci project had not been brought before this Commission. City Planner Christians stated that most big projects did go before the Parking Place Commission such as the 24 units on Baden Avenue which had conditions on the Use Permit. Planning Commissioner Bertucelli stated that if a new project was going into the Parking District the project did not have to provide its own parking - the District provided parking. Councilwoman Teglia stated that once while on the Planning Commission it had written in a condition on the Use Permit that that applicant had to go before the Parking Place Commission for the parking issue. She stated that as a Councilwoman she had attended a Parking Place Commission meeting and had questioned why they did not review the parking in the District for new projects coming in - she had been told that the Commission knew nothing about a review. She continued, she and the Commission had had Mr. Costanzo explain that the review of parking for new projects was a condition the Planning Commission had set down. City Planner Christians stated that major remodeling or large structural changes would go before the Parking Place Commission in addition to changes of use or intensity. Discussion followed on the change in use of the secondhand store wherein the busi- 3/21/84 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Discussion - Continued. ness license was acquired and a check cashing use had been in operation for two months before it was brought before the Parking Commission; that the business had operated on a temporary permit; that when it was discovered to be a more intensive use than the prior business it was sent to the Parking Commission. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that if the Parking Place Commission does not approve of a use being in without on-site parking, then eventually a variance would have to be applied for from the Planning Commission. He stated that after Council clarified this issue it should ease the frustration of the Commissions over parking for new projects. Councilwoman Teglia questioned what was needed in order for some of the projects, for example one restaurant with two floors of housing to be accepted by the Parking Place Commission. Parking Place Commissioner Rosaia stated that it would take more parking. Councilwoman Teglia questioned what would happen if they couldn't provide parking. Discussion followed: that the applicant and the Parking Place Commission would have to compromise; in-lieu fees used by other cities at $5,000 per space; which would not buy a parking space or lot; that the new Baden Avenue lot had cost $300,000; employee parking and not providing a parking turnover for customers; permit parking spaces; etc. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the Council and Planning Commission were looking at policies to renovate existing hotels downtown for long term low cost housing. She continued, there was also the possibility of seeing new construc- tion with the first floor being a retail establishment and the next two floors perhaps residential or offices. 3/21/84 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN o 1. Discussion - Continued. Chairman Sciandri stated that first the parking problems - define the problems and have a goal toward parking solutions. He stated that the Parking Place Commission with the Planning Commission were going out to bid for a parking consultant to look at the existing parking lots, their locations and whether a parking structure was needed. He stated that when that was done the Commission would better know what direction to pursue. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had been hearing about a master parking plan for three years without it coming to fruition. She stated that these projects had money for development of the downtown which three years from now would not be available. Discussion followed: feeding meters on Grand Avenue; chalked tires on the side streets; that the Enforcement Officer took care of the downtown, industrial area and the flip flop parking; the number of citations given by the Enforcement Officer; that vacation and sickness relief for the Officer came out of the Police budget; was there a demand for increased enforcement; having an officer in the downtown area eight hours a day; owners of businesses on Grand Avenue parking in front of their busi- nesses without being tagged; acting with discretionary police powers, acting within legal restraints in tagging cars; using stickers for residential parking; looking for an engineering remedy to the parking; clear policies developed with respect to parking; the problem on Linden and 3rd Lane was because of a warehouse; the conditions of storage for the ware- house use should be investigated for violations by the Planning Department; etc. Planning Commissioner Terry questioned whether the downtown parking lots were empty on Saturday and if so let the people park there on Saturdays. 3/21/84 Page 8 AGENDA 1. Discussion - Continued. ACTION TAKEN o48 Planning Commissioner Grimes questioned why the east side of Grand Avenue has no accessibility to the parking lots. He continued, on the west side of the 300 block there was a breezeway and a walkway on the 200 block. He stated that there were four or five parking lots on Miller, Grand and Baden Avenues that are rarely used for parking. He stated that there was a need for a multi storied parking structure, such as Kaiser's, in the downtown area. Planning Commissioner Hoyer felt that the parking consultant was important and the results of his study would give the City di recti on. Director of Finance Lipton stated that a preliminary proposal had been drafted which was being routed to the major departments for input and hoped it would be read by early April to the Commission. He continued, then the proposal would be sent out; there were five consultants that were interested; the study would take five to six weeks and hopefully by June 30th would have the information from the study for a course of action for 1984-85. Vice Mayor Haffey stated that in the meantime what should be done to the down- town area so it does not stagnate with additional parking not coming for a long time and the need for continued invest- ment downtown. Parking Place Commissioner Rosaia stated that the Commission did not want to see development stopped, but maybe controlled. He questioned whether the downtown was being geared for commercial or residential use. Councilwoman Teglia thought the direction of the General Plan and the investment in the downtown revitalization was really the crux, and the Council direction was to provide housing in the area. Parking Place Commissioner Sciandri 3/21/84 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Discussion - Continued. stated that Policy 2-6 new uses that are more parking intensive than current uses should not be permitted in the downtown unless additional off-street parking is provided on-site. He stated that Policy D-6, major new uses in the area should be required to provide adequate off-street parking on-site. Councilwoman Teglia stated that when the Commission saw something that was being gutted, remodeled or going up without the possibility for parking was being stopped. She stated that no one was going to put lots of money into one level, instead they would remodel and add one or two stories for the greater return on their investment. Discussion followed on the parking requirements put on the project at Spruce and Grand Avenues where a parking lot was put in a half block away; putting parking stalls under buildings; the joint meeting of the Parking Place Commission and the Planning Commission; wherein it was stated that the Parking Place Commission was too lax in not requiring additional parking; opening up the downtown and hope the solutions to parking problems would be found; employing the car sticker system; making long term meters short term meters; interim policies; etc. Parking Place Chairman Sciandri stated that a Resolution passed by his body left no room for development in the downtown area where anyone could supply enough parking which was adopted prematurely. He stated that the Resolution the Director of Community Development pre- sented tonight was a better one because it gave the Commission leeway. Mayor Addiego stated that the Commission should take the Resolution and weigh it carefully. Discussion followed on how the Grand Avenue meters have a maximum of one hour; having employees park in the lots and the 3/21/84 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 250 1. Discussion - Continued. customers park on the street; putting a sign in the lots "permits available." A long discussion followed on using in- lieu fees for a second enforcement officer; none of the juristions that use in-lieu fees felt that it was an effec- tive tool; that Staff had problems with the in-lieu fees; would a developer ever directly receive some of the in-lieu fees in time; that the in-lieu fees go into the revolving fund for additional parking; a multi parking facility; trading the Miller and Maple lot for a more convenient lot; north side of Baden and the south si de of Miller being con- sidered commercial rather than resi denti al; putting commerci al/retail downstairs and parking upstairs. Parking Place Commission Chairman Rosaia stated that there were a few projects waiting for the Commission to act upon and it would be a couple of months before the Resolution was adopted and in-lieu fees were set and adopted. He stated that the Commission needed to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss in- lieu fees. Mayor Addiego stated that the Commission was bound to rectify the situation and did not know whether they were bound to do more. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela suggested that the Parking Place Commission rescind their prior resolution and adopt a new interim policy, exclusive of the in-lieu fee, and reconsidering the old applications under the new policy. Mayor Addiego stated that in regard to the in-lieu fees the Commission should do what it was comfortable in doing. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had not been comfortable with the Parking Place Commission denying an application and then the applicant would apply for a 3/21/84 Page 11 AGENDA ACTI'ON TAKEN 1. Discussion - Continued. e Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations and 1 i ti gati on. RECALL TO ORDER: ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, City of South San Francisco variance on parking. Mayor Addiego complimented both Commissions on their attendance tonight on such short notice. Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:23 p.m., for the discussion of person- nel matters, labor relations and litigaton. The meeting was recalled to order at 9:58 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. APPROVED: ddie~)o, Mayor ty of South San Francisco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying 3/21/84 Page 12